




^>^^ 











^- 









*^ % 



:'»': ^^1 



0^' :^-. ^-o/ :^: V/ f^', ^^ M 










SPEECH 



OF 



HON. WILLIAM SMITH, OF VIRGINIA, 



ON THE 



BILL FOR THE AMISSION OF MINNESOTA; 



DEl.iViJRED 



IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, MAY «, 1356. 



WASHINGTON: 
PRINTED AT THE CONGRE^IONAL GLOBE OFFICE. 

1858. 



The Conslitutinn bas conferred on Congress the right to establish a uniform rule of naturah- 
Eation.and this is evidently exclusive, and has always been held by this court to be so.—Vred 
Scott vs. Sanford; Federalist, Nos. 32 and 42, &c. 

Naturalization is the mean? by which an alien is introduced into the body-politic and clothed with 
all the rights and privileges of one born in the country.— Fa/<ei. 

Can a State, by any provision of her constitution or law in conformity thereto, annul in effect the 
naturalization law of our Union without violating the Federal Constitution ? 

" I Rhould he e^cprdin-rlv ?orrv, sir, that our rule of naturalization excluded a single person of good fame that •'eally 
«,Pantto"n!orporTeinSin.7;.ur^^^^ on the other hand, I do not wish that any man should acquire the pnv- 

lege hut such as would be a real addition to the wealth or strength of the United tetates. 



occupy 
Virginia. 



Here is the doctri.ie, as laid down by Mr. Madison, that I maintain. This is the position l 
ipy. This is the ground upon which I can stand before the country. — If i«i«m l^mitli, oj 



ADMISSION OF MINNESOTA. 



The House having under consideration the bill for the 
admission of Minnesota as a State Into the Union — 

Mr. SMITH, of Virginia, said: 

Mr. Speaker: Various views have been pre- 
sented on tliis important question, the import- 
ance of which I myself feel, and which I am dis- 
posed to consider; and I now ask the attention 
of the House, while I present the results of this 
consideration. I hold that it is very clear that we 
ought not lightly, and without due and proper 
consideration, to add to tlte number of Slates in 
our Federal Union. We ougiit, at least, to see 
that they come in, in strict conformity with tiie 
Constitution. In the consideration of this subject 
I shall beg leave to slate a few general principles, 
and to make some considerable references to au- 
thorities. I shall not indulge in many specula- 
tions of my own; but I shall seek, from the estab- 
lishment of principles, to demonstrate the propri- 
ety of the conclusion to which I think this House 
ought to come. 

It becomes iiiterestingto inquire — and the House 
will readily see that this question is involved — 
what constitutes a country or a nation ? I should 
suppose it to be clear and undoubted, that in the 
creation of our Federal system and in the adop- 
tion of our Constitution, it was designed to cover 
the citizens or the pco|ile of the United States, 
and them only. Is it possible, can it be seriously 
considered, that in the formation of the Consti- 
tution of the United States, it was the puq'>ose 
and intention of our fathers to provide a Consti- 
tution for persons v^ho were not citizens of the 
United States? I beg gentlemen to pause here, 
and to look at the question in this single light. 
In the formation of our Federal Constitution was 
it designed for any others than the people of the 
United States, being citizens thereof.' I main- 
tain, sir — I have frequently maintained, and am 
prepared, if I can gain the attention of the House, 
to maintain now — that in the action of our system, 
in all its ramifications and parts, we must look to 
this great fundamental principle, that our Consti- 
tution was framed for the people of the Union, 



being citizens of the United States, and for no 
others. I will refer to Vattel — in .sections one 
hundred and twenty-two, two hundred and twelve, 
two hundred and thirteen, and two hutidred and 
fourteen — for the purpose of showing that the 
term " country" signifies " the State of which 
one is a member;" and is " thus understood in 
the law of nations." 

This doctrine is fully maintained in the Dred|_ 
Scott decision. Chief Justice Taney, in deliver- 
ing the opinion of the court, said: 

" The words ' people of the United States' and ' citizens, 
are synonymous terms, and mean the same tiling." 

He also said: 

" It is true, every person, and every class and description 
of persons, who were at the time of the adoption of the Coti- 
stilurion recognized as citizens in the several States, be- 
came also citizens of tliis new political hody, but none other. 
It was tormed hy them, and for them and their posterity} 
hut for no one else. And the personal rij^hts and privileges 
guarantied tooitizensof this new sovereignty were iiuendet^ 
to embrace those ordy who were then members of the sev-' 
eral State communities, or who should afierwajTs by birth- 
right or otherwise become members, according to the pro- 
visions of the Constitution, ami the principles on which it 
was founded. It was the iniion of those who were at that 
time members of distinct and separate political communi- 
tio-, into one political family, whose power, for certain spe- 
cified purposes, was to extend over the whole territory of 
the United States." 

This is the true doctrine; and, if rememberet^ 
and respected, will furnish an easy solution of 
many of the questions involved in this discussidn. 

The distinction between citizens and aliens wil^ 
be found laid down in Vattel, sections two hun- 
dred and twelve and tv/o hundred and tliirteeii. 
The distinction between citizens and foreigners 'is 
clearly marked there. In the two hundred and[ 
fourteenth section it is laid down that naturaliza- 
tion is one means, and the only means, by which 
a foreigner can be declared a citizen of acountryj 

This being the doctrine, I propose now to refte^ 
from various authorities on the subject, to show 
not only the policy, but the true doctrine which 
bears on this suiiject. It is known to us all that, 
in the Constitution of the United States, there is 
a clause designed to secure uniformity throu2:hout 
the Union in the naturalization of foreign born. 



But it is a subject so clearly demonstrated that it 
was absolutely necessary that the power should 
be confined to the Federal Government, that it did 
not produce the briefest discussion. It is a curi- 
ous fact that, in the convention which framed the , 
Constitution, there was not one word of discussion j 
on that subject. Mr. Randolph, who was the chair- j 
limn of the committee to whom the subjectof draft- 
ing the Constitution was first referred, says: j 
«•' nut as the c-onvoritior, !i;iil nii'iinrued fmni Virainia, and ] 
Jiirt c<»ll<;;i>:ii*'s slIpl)<)^l;ll tliut sojiu: propositidrt 'viis (-xpcctod i 
fnmi them, tliey had iniix)=cd this tusk upon him.'" i 

Mr. Randolph also said: ; 

'• A provision for harmony amang the States, as in tradf, i 
ratHralization, Stc, mnit be mailc.^' 

Mark you, sir, that Mr. Randolph, in making: j 
his report, said that there were certain great sub- j 
jects in which there should be no division of opm- j 
ion, in which there should be harmony between I 
a'l the States. One of these is naturalization. j 
That is not all. In May, 17ri7, Mr. C. Pinck- 
uey submitted a draft of a Constitution, in which 
is found the power " to ostalilisli uniform rules 
of naturalization." June 15, 1787, Mr. Palter- 
6T>n, of New Jersey, submitted a draft of a con- 
stitution, in which is found a power " that the 
rule of naturalization ought to be the saine in 
every State." 

Sir, as I said before on this specific grant of 
power, there appears to have been no discussion. 
Its necessity, its propriety, its fitness, seem to 
have been universally conceded; and 1 desire to 
call attention to the tact for the purpose of ena- 
bling the House to follow me, I trust satisfaclo- 
cilyfto the conclusions which I shall draw. 

But, sir, that is not all. Judge Story, hi his 
essay on the Constitution of the United States, 
treats this subject. He depicts the evils to be 
avoided; and, although I may weary the House, 
wet I will read froin that book. In sections 109d 
and 1099, volume three, of the edition in my pos- 
session, Judge Story says: 

" 1093. The propriety of coiifidiiii; the powftr to establish 
a uniform rule ofiuaurali/.atioii toUic iiaiional Governineut 
seems not to have occasioned any doulit or controversy in 
the convention. For au;;ht that appears in the joarnais, it 
was concet^d without objection. Under tlie Confedera- , 
tion, the Suues possessed the sole authority to exercise the | 
power; and the dissiniihirity of the system in ditferent i 
States was generallv adniitled. as a prominent defect, and ] 
»aid the foundation' of many delicate and intricate (jues- ] 
tinns. As the free inhabitants of each State were entitled j 
to all tlie privilt:(;<;s and immunities of citizens in all the j 
Other States, it followed that a sinijle State posscs.sed the ! 
fion-er of foieioL' into every other State, with the enjoyment i 
of every ininiunity and pi-ivilego. any alien whom it mi^'ht 
Choose to incorporate into its own society, however repuc:- 
■ant such admission miKlit he totheir polity, conveniences, 
and even prejudices. In effect, every State possessed the 
power of iiaturalizins aliens in every other State a power 
as mischievous in its nature as It was indiscreet in its actual 
exercise. Jn one State, residence for a short time might, 
and did, confer the rights of citizenship. In others, quah- 
ficatious of greater importance were required. Au alien, 
therefore, incapacitated for the possession of certain rights 
toy the laws of the latter, might, by a previous residence and 
naturalization in the former, elude at pleasure all their sal- 
Wary regulations for self protection. Thus, the laws of a 
Biiigle Swtc were preposterously rendered paramount to the 
laws of all the others, even within their own jurisdiction. 
And it lifis been remarked, with equal truth and justice, 
that it was owing to mere casualty that the exercise of this 
power, under the Confederation, did not involve the Uui'ui 
in the most serious etiiharrassnients. There is great wis- 
(Som, therefore, in confiding to the natioinl Government the 
power toestahlish a uniform rule of naturalization through- 
out the United States. It is of the deepest interest to the 
Whole Union lo know who are entitled to enjoy the rights 



of citizens in each State, since they thereby, in elfect, be- 
come entitled to the rights of citizens in all tlie Stales. If 
aliens might be admitted indiscriminately to enjoy all the 
rights of citizens at the will of a single State, the UnioH 
itself might he endangered tty an influx of foreigners, hostile 
to its institutions, ignorant of its powers, and incapable ot 
a due e-timale of its privileges. 

" lO'JD. It follows, from the very nature of the power, that 
to be useful, it must be exclusive ; for a concurrent power 
in the States would bring back all the evils and einharrai-s 
ments which the uniform rule of the Constitution was de- 
signed to remedy. And, accordingly, though there was a 
momentary hesitation, when the Consiiuilion first went 
into oper.iiion, wheiher the power might not still be exer- 
cised by tlie States, subject only to the control of Congress, 
so tar as the legislation of the hitter extended, as the su- 
preme law, yet ihii »• -. ..,. .i,„,i 



prenie law, vet the power is now firmly established to be 
exclusive. (See the Federalist, No. 32, 4-2 ; Chirac r. Chirac, 
•2 Wheat. U, 959, 269; Rawie on the Const, ch. 9, p. 84, b.'i, 
to 88; Ilousten i>. Moore, .5 Wheat. R. 48, 49; Golden r. 
Prince,/! Wash. Cir. Ct. R. 313,322: I Kent's Comm. l.ect. 
19, p. .397 ; 1 Tuck. Black. Comm. App. 25.') to 959.) The 
Federalist, indeed, introduced this very case, as entirely 
clear, to illustrate the doctrine of an exclusive power by 
implication, arising from the repugnancy of a similarpower 
in the States. ' This power must necessarily be exclusive,' 
say the autliors ; ' becnuse, if each Stat;; had power to pre- 
scribe a distinct rule, there could be no uniform rule.' " 

Mr. Speaker, I have called attention to these 
clauses in this standard authority upon the Con- 
stitution, for the purpose of marking what I deem 
important in reference to the ultimate conclusion 
at which I propose to arrive, it is a doctrine 
which will not be questioned by any one; but it 
will be contended tliat it does not present the real 
fjuestion involved in the bill before us. 1 propose 
to show tliat it docs. 

1 desire now to call attention to what i.s said in 
the Federalist upon the subject, because it was a 
eotemporaneous exposition of the Constitution; 
it was designed to present the Constitution in sucli 
a light to the American people as to secure its 
adoption; it was the exposition, too, of great and 
impartial minds, and I propose to read from two 
of the numbers, one by Mr. Hamilton, and the 
other by Mr. Madison. In the one by Mr Hamil- 
ton, he"gnes on to classify the circumstances un- 
der which powers are denied to the Slates. He 
says theyare of three descriptions or classes. One 
is where exclusive power ia granted in terms to the 
General Government; another is where powers 
are denied to the States; and the third is where 
the pov/er is totally contradictory and repugnant 
if exercised by the Stales; and 1 lake this occasion 
here to read his emphatic and delightful doctrine 
upon the .subject of the true construction of the 
i Constitution. He says: 

'• But as the plan of the convention aims only at a partial 
union or consolidation, the State governments would clearly 
retain all the riglits of sovereignty which they hefore had, 
and which were not, by that act, culiisivelii delegated to 
the United .States." 

Again: 

"And where it granted an authority to the Union towhich 
a similar authority in the States would be absolutely and 
totally coiuradiciory and repugnant." 

Further on he says: 

"The third will be found in tli-xt clause which declares 
that CoUL're.ss shall have power to establish a uniform rolk 
of natur.-ilization tliroughout the United States. This must 
necessarily be exclusive; because if each State had power 
to prescribe a distinct rule, there could be no cniform 
RULE !" 

But Mr. Madison wrote upon this subject also, 
and I desire to call particular attention to his views 
upon it. Mr. Madison, in treating the same ques- 
tion, for it was one, I lieg you to remember, that 
interested deeply the American people, goes over 



the same ground with his characteristic power 
andcltaruess. 

In the ffiriy-second tiumber of the Federalist, 
Mr. Miulison says: 

"Tlie (lissiiiiilariiy in the rulft?; of naluralizatimi \v\< Ion;; 
been remark(;(i as afaiill in our system, and as laying iUbiiiiii 
.ttioTi tor intrica'c and (Iniipate questionn. In tlie fmirtli 
aiticlR ol'tlie Confedoratioii it is declared 'that tho/rce in- 
A«Ai«((n<voreach oflho States, p.iiipers, vajalionds, and t'li 
5ilive.-l'rnniju-tlci;exc'Hpti-d. shall bo (Militli:d loali the [>riv 
ileges and immunities nf free citi:eni in tin; srvcral Slates ; 
and the peijile nl'each Stafp shall, in every othi'r, iMijoy all 
the privili'i^i.'s of trade and coininfrce, &e." 'J'hcro i.- a cou 
lUiiioii of lantiiaje here, which is remarkable. Why the 
term- Crec iiilialiititnt.i Rrf. n-icd in one part of th." article, 
free citi:eH<; in anmher, ami people in another ; or what was 
"meant hv .siiperaddins to -all privileses and immunities of 
free citizens,' ' all the privileges of trade and commerce,' 
cannot easily bedetermined. Itseems to h(^ a construction 
scarcely avciidahle, howm-er, that those who ccnne nnd.tr 
the denomination of free iuhahitunts of a Stat<>, altlioush 
not citizens of iich State, are entitled, in every oth<!r State, 
to all the privih'ges of free citizens of the latter; that is, to 
greater privil.i;cs than they may be entitled to in their own 
Btate : so that. It may be in tlie power of a partii'ular State, 
or rather evsMV State is laid under a necessity, not only to 
confer the riaiits of cilizi-n-hip in other States upon any 
whom it may admit to such rights witb.in itself, but upon 
any whom it may allow to become inhabitants within iis 
jurisdiction. But were an expo-ition of she tiriii -inhab 
itaiits' to be admitted, which would confine the stipulated 
privileijes to citizens alone, thediiticiilty isdiminisliedonly, 
not removed. 'J'lie very improp('r power would .still be re 
tained by each Slate, of naturalizing aliens in every oti'.cr 
Stat(?. In one State, residence for a short term confers 
all the rights of citizenship; in another, qualification.^ of 
ireater importance are re(|nir(!d. An alien, therefore, le- 
gally ineapacitaK'd for eert:iin rijibts in the latter, may, by 
previous residence only in the former, elude his incapacity ; 
and thus the law of oiie State be ]treposieroiisly rendered 
paramount to the law of aiiotiier, wiiliiii the juri.-dictiou of 
llie other. 

" We owe it to mere casualty that very serious embar- 
rassments on this subject have been hitherto eseiiped. By 
the laws of several States, certain descriptions of aliens, 
who had rendered themselves obno.viuus, were laid under 
interdicts ineorisisteiit, not only with the riglit.s of ciliz:Mi- 
sliip, hill Willi ilie privileges of residence. Wiiat wimid 
have been the consi-(|uence if such per=(Mis,by rcsideiieeor 
otherwise, had acquired the cliaracter of citizens under the 
laws of another State, and then asserted liieir rights as such, 
both to resid<'nce and citizenship, within the State proscrib- 
ing theni.'' Whatever the legal conseqii.'iices mislit have 
been, other consequences would prohiibiy have resulted, of 
too serious a nature not to be provided aitainst. The new 
Constitution has, accordiiiL'ly, with gre-at propriety, made 
provision auaiiist them, and all others, proceediii!; from the 
defect ol' the Confederation on this head,hy authorizinir the 
General Government to establish a uniform rule of natur- 
alization throuj^hout the L'nited Suites." 

In the Dred Scott decision, before referred to, 
the same doctrine is maintained: 

" The Constilution has conferred upon Con!;ress the risht 
to establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and this rijilit 
is evidently exclusive, and has always been held by this 
court to be so." 

I advert to tltesc important aulhorities for the 
purpose of letting this House s^e that every evil 
depicted there, and every evi! desij^ned to be 
averted by tlie power thus exclusively conferreii 
upon the Federal Government, is to be revived 
and restored uiKJer the sy.stem which now seems 
likely to be adopted. If, then, this power be ex- 
clusive, I ask how the Slates can concern with it.' 
1 luaintain th.U until luituralizalion is completed, 
the powerof Congress over the foreigner remains. 
I re|>eat, and I desire it to be understood, that 
Federal authority does not relinquish ?ts control 
over the foreigner until his rijjlit to naturalization 
is f)erfectP(l. 

What is requisite to give a forei2;ner the rij;ht 
of suflVage ? He must make his declaration; he 



must be five years in the'country, and that must 
be proved by two citizens of the United States; 
he must show himsilf to be a man of probity and 
good (h/meanor, aiul to have borne an un(|ues- 
tionabli! character; he mti.^t show that he is ac- 
quainted with our instittuiotifi, and attached to 
the principles of our Government. Suppose that 
the foreie;iier should ask to be naturalized, and 
should fail ill any of these" requisites: can he ac- 
quire the right of citizenship.' Suppose that he 
turns out to be a man of bad character; suppose 
it is notorious that he is anything but friendly to 
our free institutions; snfipose, iiLstead of showing 
he is attached to the principles of our Govern- 
ment, that it is shown (hat he is still a monarch- 
ist: h(! cannot acq 11 iri; the rightsof naturalization; 
and thus it is, sir, he may be re;(>cted in the very 
last moment, after having been five years in the 
country, and when he appears in court to perfect 
his right to citizenship. Congress, then, does not 
lose its hold of him until the last hour: and, until 
he becomes an American citizen, the State has no 
pov/er to confer upon him the rights of suffrage 
in any Federal election. \ think that this is one 
of those propositions which cannot be contro- 
verted; and I think that, as Congress controls him 
until all the conditions required by the naturali- 
zation laws are fully coini)lied with, it is conclu- 
sive evidence that the Stiiie has no power to con- 
fer upon him any political right uiid-r the Federal 
Constitution whatever. 

It is said, in this connection, that th.e States 
have always cxercisi-d this power. Tltat was 
said by some gentlemen who have preceded me 
in this debate. Allow me to say, that I think 
that is a great mistake. You know tliat this 
suiyect anxiously engaged the attentii>n of those 
who preceded us; and without dwelling upon 
it, I beg leave to call the attention of the l-louse 
to what, ill debating the naturalizatnni laws in 
1795, Mr. Uallalin said. The quesiion came up 
in connection with the right of sulfrage in his own 
State. There were nr.tny persons naturalized un- 
der the State law who were excluded from all the 
rights of United States citizenship. I gel what 
1 extract from Gales &, S«aton's AnnaLs: 

'• Mr. Gallatix wished to knov.' whether the provisions 
of this act are intended lo extend to person.s who were in 
the coiiiilry previous to the pa-siag ot the law of January, 
1795, which requifesaresidi'mje of five years before an alien 
can become a citizen, but who iiave neglected to become 
citizens, as well as to all those aliens who have come to 
this country since January, 179,'j .'' , 

" Asain, he said, one reason which led him to mention 
this circumstance was, that there are agreatnumber of per- 
sons in the State of I'einisylvania, and many in the district 
from whence he caino, who, though they are not citizens of 
the United States, really believe they are. Thismi>tako has 
arisen from (an error coinnioa to moslofthe districts of the 
United Stales) a belii;f tiiat an alien's being naturalized by 
the laws of a rotate government, since tlie act of 1790, made 
him a cinzen of the United States. He always tlioiight that 
coiislriiclion to he wrong. f'oiigres!' bavins the pow.M to pass, 
and having passed, a uniform naturalization law, which, in 
his opinion, e.xcluded tlie idetiofadmission to ciiizcnship on 
difl'erent terms by llie individual Slates. But he knew the 
contrary opinion, till lately, generally prevailed. Indeed, ho 
knew that at tin; late election in that city, the votes of re- 
spectable merchants, who had obtained .\nieiiean registers 
for their vessels, on a pri;siiini)lion of their being citizens, 
were refu>ed on this ground. The same mistake had ex- 
tended to other parts of the Utiiim. 

" Mr. G. supposed that since the year 1790, from ten to 
fifteen thousand emigrants had come into the Slate of Penn- 
sylvania, two thirds of whom believed, till lately, that they 
were; citizens of the United States, from their having been 
naturalized bv the laws of that State. It ha.s now been dia- 



6 



cnverod that tliry are not citizens ; liut sinre that discovpiy 
was made, lli'y have not had an oppnrtiinity of bi.ing ad- 
mitted accoiilii)!; to the law ol' the United States. 

Hi're you see, in refurence to naturalization un- 
der Stale laws, Mr. Gallatin concedes that those 
thus naturalized wore not citizens, and that con- 
sequently the riy:ht of suffrafje sliouhl lie denied 
them. He himself was of foreign birth, and of 
course intere-^sted in the question, and would not 
hastily have decidi'd as lie did. 

Mr BLF.SS. Will the genileman yield to me 
for a moment.' 

Mr. SVHTfl. ofVirginia. C<;riainly. 

Mr. HLISS. 1 ri.se hiinjily for the purpose of 
asking ihe geiitleman from Virginia to give u.s, if 
he has the n(;t Ijefore him, the language of the 
Peniii^ylvania siatiiie upon that subject. 

Mr. WMITH, of Virginia. I have it not. I 
have reiid finm the debate of ]795. 

Mr. BLISS. I asked the question because I 
did not know exaeily what that statute was. 

Mr. SMITH, of Virginia. The debate was 
upon till' sulijeet of naturalization. 

Mr. ELl^S. The question is this : whether the 
Pennsylvania statute, to which the gentleman re- 
fers, conferred the elective franchise, or under- 
took to naturalize generally.' 

Mr. IlliAGAN. 1 dt.'sire to say a word upon 
the point on which the gentleman fiom Oiiio has 
interrupted the jrentleman from Virginia. 1 will 
call llie atichtiun of the gentleman froin Virginia 
to the fact tliai, by an early decision of the courts 
of FeniKsylvania, it was held that a State had con- 
current jurisdiction with the Federal Government 
in the matter of the naturalizaiion of foreigii'Ts; 
and to the debaie growing out of that matter, 1 ap- 
prehend that the clause which the gentleman read 
referred. It did not relate to tht! question of the 
right of a citizen to vote', but related alone to the 
power to naiuialize. 

Mr. SMITH, of Virginia. What is natural- 
ization .' It is tlie tciving to fnreigniTS rights whieh 
they did not |>ieviously possess, and among them 
the right to vote. Did the Pennsylvania law con- 
fer that right.' If it be the decismn of a statute, 
I care nm; but did the Pennsylvania law give that 
right. The answer is at hand. Says Mr. Gallatin: 

"Indeed, we knew that, in tliu late eloeiioi) i'l iliis city, 
theooAevoi re'.ipeetahle iiierehaiits. who had oliiaiued Amer- 
ican reeisi its ioi- tlieir vessils on a piesniniitien of their 
being eiiiz •ns, were refused on lliis ijrinlnd. The same 
luistalce IkhI extended lo other parts oi' the Uniiin." 

On what ground were they refused the right of 
suffrage.' Gentlemen talk about this Pennsylva- 
nia law not conferring the right of suffrage; and 
yet here it i.';: expressly said that it did confer the 
right of suffrage, and iliese men sought to exer- 
cise that right under the Pennsylvania naturaliza- 
tion law. I may not understand it; but here it 
is, and " he who runs may n>ad." If a man who 
came forwaril to vote under the provisions of tliat 
law was excluded, he was excluded upon the 
ground that he was not a citizen of the United 
States; and if he was jierinitted to vote, it would 
be upon the |iresumption liiai he was a citizen of 
the United States; and I undertake to say, and I 
have no doubt such will be the fact, that this 
Pennsylvania law was passed prior to tlie adop- 
tion of the Constitution. It was, no doul>t, the 
old Pennsylvania constitution ieji;ulating iliisques- 
tion, which was superseded, as was decided in a 
case in the State of Alaryland, by the adoption of 



the Federal Constitution. That will no doubt be 
found to be the state of things, and those respect- 
able merchants were denied thd riijht of suffrage, 
though located permanently in the country, be- 
cause they were not citizens of the United iStates, 
and not because of any oiher )irovision, citizen- 
ship being the fundamental condiiion to the ex- 
ercise of this high attribute of popularsovereignty. 
I think it will be found that this is the clew to the 
subject. 

Hut without dwelling at large upon this sub- 
ject, let me proceed. In a case which came di- 
rectly before the Supreme Court of the United 
States, as reported in second Wheaton, the court 
Went into a discussion of the question of property, 
and they sufterseded the law of the Slate of Ma- 
ryland, and gave the property a different direc- 
tion from what it would have taken if the ["irty 
claiming it had been a citizen of the United States. 
And why.' Because it was the purpose of the 
founders of the Republic to confine the right of 
suffrage, that great fundamental political right of 
popular liberty, to those who were citizens of the 
United Slates, whether naiive or foreign-born. 

I will now proceed to call the attention of the 
House to the sentiments of our fathers. Gentle- 
men have extraordinary notions upon this subject. 
They have the notion that anybody who comes 
here is at once entitled to pariicifiate in the right 
of suffraice. Every year adds some three hundred 
thousand foreigners lo our pojiulaiion, and they 
are not required to wait liie period of time speci- 
fied by the act of Congress, prescribing the rule 
of naturalization, but they are precipitated in hot 
hasie ujioii the ballot-box, and introduce'd into the 
political strugijles of the day. Is that right.' 

I beg, in this connection, to call ilie attention 
of the House lo what passed in the Federal con- 
vention. I know it is thought that there was a 
policy in thai day which required us to encour- 
age emigration. Yes, sir, there was a policy which 
requireii it to a limited extent. But how.' Ttj that 
matter I now call yourattention. Colonel Mason, 
of Virginia, then one of the leading members of 
Congress, who was for opening a wide door for 
emigrants, but did not choose to let foreigners 
make laws for us, said: 

" Were it iioi tliat many, not natives of this country, had 
aeiinired ureal rredii diiriji;; ihe Ri'VolutInn, he slioiilil be lor 
resiraininii Ihe elj;;il)ility into the Seiiule to natives." 

Mr. Butler, a very distingiiiislied man of that 
day, said that he — 

— '• was deeiii"dly opposed to the admi.ssion of foreigners 
vvitliout a lon^' residence in the eountry. They hriiiii Willi 
tliein, not only auaeliinents to other countrie,.s, hut ideas of 
C'lvernment.so di.-iinel Ironi ours that in every point of view 
they are damterou.s. lie ai knmvh'ilL'ed ihat, it he himself 
h:i(i been called into public lile vviihm a short lime aller his 
e<;mini» to AneTiea, his foreiyrn habits, opinions, and attaetl- 
inents, would have rendered hiiii an improper agent in pub- 
lie afiairs." 

•• .Mr. R\NUot.i'n did not know butjt mi|,'ht be [iroblem- 
atieal wheiher eini;>rants lo this country were, on the 
whole, useful or not." 

" Mr. GiaiKY wished that in future the eligibility might 
be eoiifnieil u> natives." 

" Mr. VVii.i.iAM.soN moved lo insert nine years instead of 
sev.'i!. lie wislied this eouniry toaetpiire, as fast as possi- 
ble, nalion.il haliils, VVeallhy einiunuils do more harm, by 
their lu\'urious h.ibits, than good by the money tin y bring 
with them. '4 

".Mr. linTi.KR was strenuous against admitting foreigners 
into our pnlilie entnieils." 

'•.Mr. iSuKRMAN. The United Slates have not invited 
foreiijiiers, nor pledged their faitli that they should enjoy 
ecjual privileges with native citizens. Theiudividual Slates 



ainiiie liave drtne tliis. Tlie former, tlicreforp, am at liberty 
to in:ikft any (lisprimiiiaiioiis they may ju(l<;e rtKinisiti!." 

" Mr. Mmmson iiiiuiiadvcrted on llu; pcriiliarity of tlip 
doctriiiH of Ml-. .Slierrnaii. ft was a siihtilty by wliicli eviMy 
national fiii;.i'.'ciii''nt iiiiKlit bo evad.'il." 

" ColonrI Masov \va-:>lnif k.not, like Mr. Madison, with 
the pcnilldriti/. hut iUf proprirliioi'Uw dootriiiHOtMr. Slii-r 
man. 'I'he St:iti>s h.-ivi'lbriiii'dditfiMent nUM.hticalionstlieai 
selves for enjoying dillcrent rights of citizenship." 

I ri?a(l tlii;se rftnarks for the purpose of lettiii.": 
the House see HDil understand what was the tem- 
per and tone and sentiment of tliose who framed 
our organic law. I want the [louse to under- 
stand ttiat even at that day, wh^'U we were in a 
state of almost [iniitical dissolution —a weak and 
feeble people, tiireatened with the any;er of the 
British lion — even then the riu;lits of Ameriean cit- 
izens were highly a]ipreciated, and ihe privilege of 
foreigners sharing in them was guarded with jeal- 
ousy and care. Nor is that all. I propose to read, 
for the information of the House, the debate <in 
the first bill passed on the subject of naturaliza- 
tion, in which the healthy tone of public senti- 
ment, on the part of our fathers, cannot fail to be 
highly refreshing to us, their sons. 

On the first bill establishing a uniform rule of 
naturalization, a protracted debate sprang: up, in 
which the following sentiments were expressed, 
in which it was assumed that naiuralizaiion was 
necessary to give the right of suffrage. The de- 
bate commenced February 3, 171)0. Mr. Hartley 
said: 

"'i'he policy of the old nations of Europe has drawn aline 
betw<'eii citizens and aliens ; that policy has e.tisKnl. to our 
ktiowledge, ever since the foundation ol the lloinan Empire. 
E.\perience lias proved its propriety, or we sliouhl have j 
found some nation deviating from a regulation inimical to 1 
its welfare. From this it may be inferred that weouijlit not : 
to grant this piivilege on terms so easy as is mov>'d by the I 
gentleman from South (Carolina. Tf lie had gone; no (in tlier 
in liis inotinn than to trive aliens a right to piircliase and hold 
lands, the objection would not have been so great ; but if 
the words are stricken out that lie has moved for, an alien 
will be entitled to join in the election of your otficers at the 
first mom lit tie puts his loot on shore in America, when it 
is impossible, t'rom t!ie nature of things, that lie can be qual 
i/ied to exercise such a talent." 

Mr. Madison said: 

'' I should be exceedingly sorry, sir, that our rule of nat- 
uralization excluded a single person of good fame that reallv 
meant to incorporate himself into our society ; on the other 
hand, I do not wish that any man should acquire the privi 
lege, but such as wuiild be a real addition to the wealtli or 
strength of the United States." 

Here is the doctrine, as laid down by Mr. Mad- 
ison, that I maintain. Tliis is the pusition 1 oc- 
cupy. This is the ground upon which I can stand 
before the country. But to proceed: 

" Mr. Smith, of South Carolina, thouglit some restraint 
proper, and tiiat they v.'ould tend to raise the Government 
in the 0[iiiiion of good men, who are desirous of emigrating ; 
as for the privileze o*" electing or being elected, he conceived 
a man ought to be some lime in the country before lie could 
pretend to exercise it. 

" He said, the intention of the present motion is, to en- 
able Ibreigners to come here, purchase and hold lands; but 
this will go biryond what the mover has required ; and there- 
fore, it will be better to drall a separate clause, admitting 
theiri to purchase and hold lands upon a qualified tenure and 
preemption right, than thus admit them at once to interfere 
in our politics. The quality of being a freeholder is requi- 
site, in some States, to give a man a title to vote for cor|)o- 
ration and parish offi' ers. Now, if every emigrant who pur 
chases a small lot, but perhaps for which he has not paid, 
becomes in a moment qualified to mingle in their parish or 
corporation politics, it is possible it may create great uneasi- 
ness in neighborhoods which have been long accustomed to 
live in peace and unity. 

" Mr. Hartlky .said, an alien has no right to hold lands 
in any country ; and, if they are admitted to do it in this, we 



I are authorized to annex to it such conditions as we think 
j proper. 

" He also said, with respect to the policy of striking out 
the words allogeiher frimi the clause, and reqiiirin;; no res- 
I ideiice before a man is admitted to the rights oi election, the 
j objection-j are obvious. If, at any time, a number of people 
1 emigrate into a seapori town — tor example, from a neigh- 
boring cob.iiy iiilii t!ie State of New York — will tliey not, by 
taking the oath of allegiance, lie abb- to decide an election 
contriiry to the wishes and iiii-lination-; of the real citizens." 
"Mr. iM^nisoN sairl, wlietlnr residence is, or is not, a 
proper quality to be attached to the citizen, is the question ? 
In his own mind, he had nodonbi Init residences was a proper 
prerequisite, and lie was prepareit to decide iii favor of it." 
'■Mr. SKnc.wifK said, som.' kind of prohiition, as it has 
been termed, IS abrolnti ly lequi-ite, to enable them to feel 
and be sensible of the blessing. Without that probation, he 
should be sorry to see them exercise ii right which we have 
glori'iislv striiL'Lded to attain." 

'• Mr. Smith, of ;-!oiilli Carolina, said, for his part, he was 
of opinion, fiiat a iinilorm rule of naturalization would tend 
to make aiiiiiforin rule ofcilizenship pervade ilie whole con- 
tinent, and decide the riirhi of a tiireimier to be admitted to 
elect, or be elected, in any of the States." 

" Mr. TucKKR said, he was oilierwi-e satisfied with the 
clause, so (ar as to make residence a term of admission to 
the privilege of election " 

Mr, BISHOP. Do I understand the gentleman 
to take the ground that no person is entitled to vote 
in any State except he be a citizen of the United 
States .' 

Mr. S.MITH, of Virginia. Yes, sir, in all Fed- 
eral elections. 

Mr. RISHOP. And that a person born out of 
the country must be in the United States a certain 
number of years before he is a citizen, according 
to the laws of tlie country .' 

Mr. SMITH, of Virginia. Yes, sir; he must 
be naturnlizi'd. 

Mr. BISHOP. I would nov/ like to inquire 
how, on that gnuiiid, when Texas v/iis admitted 
into the Union, the persons livinij in Te.vas could 
be entitled to vote in that Stale until Texas had 
been in the Union for a period of five vear.s.? 

Mr. S.MiTH, of Virginia. Tnat was under a 
se})arate clause, and a power altogether different 
in its character, firoviding for such a case. 

Mr. STEVENSON. 1" would like to propound 
this question to the gentleman from Virjrinia. I 
find, by the Constitution of the Unite-d States, 
that there is a limitation on (he qualifications of 
electors for President and Vice President of the 
United States; but I find, by the same clause, that 
under the Constitution of the United Stales the 
whole number of the electors may be aliens; that 
there is no restriction of citizenship in any part 
of the Consiitution. Although there is a limita- 
tion as to offices, there is none as to citizenship 
as a qualification of electors for President and 
Vice President; and I should like to hear from the 
gentleman on that point. 

Mr. SMITH, of Virginia. I am very much 
obliged to the gentleman for bringing me to that 
point. He is an American citizin. He has a 
country which extends its wings over him. He 
has a country 's flag to stand by, and sustain him; 
and will he ever forget that tliat country is com- 
posed of those who are the people of tlie United 
States, and the citizens thereof? Tlie Constitution 
had no more idea of providing against the mania 
France, or the man in Turkey, being an elector, 
than against any other absurdity. In speaking of 
electors, and declaring, in the preamble and else- 
where, that the people of the United States have 
formed this constitution, its fi-amers, ex vi termini, 
restricted its character, and confined it in iill its 



8 



relations to the people for whom it was formed. 
Will the gentleman remember that the rights of 
foreigners are grants— that even the right to gentle 
treatment is strictly social, and pariicuhirly that 
political rights are never his except by express 
grant, and that presumptions are always against 
and never for him ? 

Why, sir, I am amazed — perfectly amazed, thai 
here, in this Government of onrs, under our Con- 
stitution, in this glorious land, there should be an 
idea that, because a constitution framed for the 
people or citizens of the United States does not 
exclude foreigners from the highest functions 
of Government, therefore that foreigners have a 
right to them. Foreigners have no rights except 
what are granted to them. They have no right 
even to hold land in the United States, or in the 
States thereof, without the powei' is conferred. 
They are aliens outside of our system, and are 
as uileily destitute of power as the man in the 
moon. Instead of showing that there is nothing 
against it, you have to show that the power 
exists and is granted. I lay it down that the 
Federal Constitution gives to this Governnient 
the exclusive power of saying who of the for- 
eign-born shall be citizens, and having exer- 
cised that authority and said wlio siuill be citi- 
zens, the exclusive power is in the State govern- 
ment to say who of her citizens shall exercise the 
right of sulTrage. I might produce auti-.orities 
if I had time. 1 might refer to Chancellor Kent, 
who assumes, as a matter of course, that nobody 
but a citizen has a right to exercise the right of 
suffrage. It is a political postulate which lie does 
not consider it worth while to argue. 

Having stated the principles — all that I can do 
in the present exigency, my time beifig nearly ex- 
hausted — I now apt)ly them. Let us look at the 
evils which this system is to inaugurate. A ma- 
jority of foreigners settle one of tiie States of the 
American Republic. They give i"orm to the funda- 
mental organization of that State. That is not all; 
they say who shall vote. Here is the section of 
this Minnesota constitution upon the subject of 
suffrage : 

"Sec. 1. Evi-ry male person of the ,igK of twenty-one 
year? or upivjirds, belonging to either of tlic following class- 
es, who shall havo ri-si(ii;d in the Utiited Status one ynar, 
and in this State for four months next preceding any eU^c 
tion, shall be entitled to vote at such election, in tne elec- 
tion district of which he shall at the time have becnforten 
iays a resident, lor ail officors that now are, or hereafter 
may be, elective by the people : 

" 1. White citizens of the United States. 

"2. VVliite persons of foreign birth, who shall have de- 
wlared their intentions lo become citizens, conformably to 
the laws of the United .States upoji the subject of naturali 
zation. 

"3. Pcrsonsof mixed white and Indian blood, who liave 
adopted the customs and Imblis of civilization. 

"4. Persons of Indian blood residing in this State, who 
have adopted the laiiguagef customs, and habits of civili 
xation, after an examination before any district court of 
llie State, in such manner as may be provided by law, and 
shall have benn pronounced by said court capable of enjoy- 
ing the rights of citizenship within the Slate." 

Now, for whom are they to vote.' They are 
to vote for a member of tiie House of Represent- 
tlivcB. He comes here, and we have a right to 



look into the qualifications of the voters who sent 
him here, and we have a direct right to ascertaitj 
whether he has been duly elected by citizens of 
the United States. That is not all, sir. By their 
votes the Legislature of the State is elected, which 
elects United Stales Senators, and we have a right 
to ascertain whether those Senators have been 
elected by proper persons. But that is not all. 
These same persons have a right, it is contended, 
to cast their suffrages for electors of the President 
of the United States. They may decide a presi- 
dential election. And that is not all. The elec- 
tion f)f Pn.'sident may come into this House, and 
may turn upon the vole of a single State, and the 
election in that State may have depended on the 
vote of one individual, and that an unnatural- 
ized foreigner just landed. Will any gentleman 
say that the introduction of such a system, affect- 
ini;- as it does the House of Representatives, the 
S.-nate, and the Presidency of the United States, 
would not lead to a frightful mass of evils to the 
Federal oigunization .' If such an idea could have 
been thouglitot', dreamed of, or imagined by those 
wiio frameil the Federal Constitution, when they 
were seeking to secure uniformity in social inter- 
course among the States, is it to be supposed for 
an instant that they v/ould not have provided 
against it ? But no man ever dreamed that voters 
were to be made out of any but citizens of the 
United States; that the law for the naturalization of 
foreigners was itself to be practically repealed, and 
that foreigners, before they had remained here five 
years, and had acquired the moral and intellectual 
qualifications required, were to be put into full fel- 
lowship with ournative-born citizens, and allowed 
to wield as large a mass of political power. 

Look at the consequences of such a condition 
of things. From three to five hundred thousand 
foreigners — many of them, I admit, very merit- 
orious and unexceptionable persons — come into 
this country every year, and settle in our new 
States and Territories; and under this system they 
are to be permitted at once to organize themselves 
into States, to send representatives to this House 
and to the Senate, and to participate in ihe elec- 
tion of the President of the United States, with- 
out ever having conformed to the requisition of 
the naturalization laws, in the name of God ! is 
it not necessary to put a stop to this state of 
things? We are running downwards with hot 
haste. We are disregarding our ancestors and 
their wise and patriotic example. A new clement 
of progress has b'een introduced, but all progress 
is not iiTi[)rovement— -/(ici/is descensus Jiverni, sed 
revocare grudiim, &c. I insist upon it, then, that 
in view of the principles and doctrines of the Con- 
stitution, we ought not to tolerate the introduction 
of a system of franchise that inust be productive 
of such coiiseqtiencos, and which admits to the 
ballot-box men who, it may be, are unable to 
speak our language, unacquainted with our insti- 
tutions, and unfriendly to the principles of our 
Government. My time will not allow me to ex- 
pand this subject, and give other views which I 
would be glad lo lay before the country. 












f 



!^\^^ ^^ -Mp:-" ^^''\. "W#/' ^^' 









% .x^' 


♦'■' 


^V 


" - 




^ 




u ' # 


o 


y^d^'r 













DOBBSBROS. ^^'i\K^^=$^ -" ^ '"^ 

>'NOV 7,8^ 0-^ 

ST. AUGUSTINE -^^ .<iy - .a'<> 



' ^^2084 ^'' ^ "^^al^y^ <iV' ^ 



